Thursday, February 23, 2012

Will Rand Paul Become Mitt Romney's Running Mate?

Dr. Paul's delegates will be very important in choosing the Republican nominee. Romney, and the others, will want those delegates desperately. This is why it is more important than ever to keep up the effort to get the Ron Paul votes out. Every additional delegate that Dr. Paul walks into the convention with will make him that much stronger in terms of negotiating power.

The key question than becomes, what does Dr. Paul demand for his delegates?

Could the answer be Rand Paul as a vice-presidential candidate?

News stories have been popping up reporting on the warm relationship between Mitt Romney and Ron Paul. Those kinds of things don't happen by accident. It's probably a signal to call the dogs off Dr. Paul. Not to promote Dr. Paul, but simply to call off the attacks. Something could be brewing, and now this from FOX News:

Nobody knows if some sort of bargain has been made, but it is interesting that Rep. Ron Paul has never really attacked Mitt Romney, yet he has frequently attacked more conservative candidates at just the moment they were beginning to pose a threat to Romney. (For example, consider his latest ad, attacking Rick Santorum.)

The timing has been noticeable.

Now, a Kentucky media outlet, WFPL News, might be offering us a clue:

Kentucky’s junior senator says it would be an honor to be considered as a possible running mate for Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney.

… After a speech in Louisville today, [Sen. Rand] Paul held that door firmly open, saying he wants to be part of the national debate.

… “I don’t know if I can answer that question, but I can say it would be an honor to be considered,” he said.

74 comments:

Win/win for both sides. Inspires conservatives to join Romney w/ the hope that Rand would actually get to air his Tea Party/Libertarian ideas to an ideologically flexible guy like Mitt Romney and gets Romney the excitement he needs from the base to rally around him to defeat the liberal Obama. Works for me (well, better than anyone else, I guess).

Me, too. I mean, is it ideal? No, a Ron Paul presidency would be ideal, but having somebody on the ticket would be better than four more years of Obama or Romney with anybody else. Hopefully, and I realize this is a big if, Romney does more listening than talking in that relationship.

That's true of Ron Paul, but perhaps not of Rand Paul, who is much younger and has his whole political career ahead of him. I think the younger Paul could work with Romney, who has no clear direction of his own and could adopt some of Paul's conservative ideas quite easily without betraying any of his directionless base.

the real question is whether ron paul supporters would ever vote for romney, regardless if rand is on the ticket. i know i wouldn't. i'd definitely want to see ron run as a libertarian. to hell with the republicans.

You don't get it. You think splitting the vote means splitting the Republican party vote.

People who support Ron Paul don't see it that way because there's no difference between Romney and Obama. For them "splitting the vote" is a split between Ron Paul and the Obama/Romney ticket. It doesn't matter whether it's Romney or Obama - neither cares about the Constitution.

Also... Ron Paul appeals to Republicans and Democrats alike. He might take more Republicans with him - but he'll take Democrats too (since they're really the same party, you'd expect him to pull from both wings)

GW just a pretty good amount of damage with his neocon friends to the Constitution. As a Ron Paul supporter, I would still not vote for Romney. I do NOT want another war. It's out of the question.

Plus, having Obama with at least another 2 yrs of a GOP-led House just means we'll have more "do nothing Congress", and that's probably a better alternative than having a "do everything (read: bomb everything) GOP federal gov't".

There is another possibility for a Ron Paul nomination. Check out this link to Americans Elect. I registered here as a Ron Paul supporter. If he wins enough support at this site, Ron Paul will be on the ballot in November. http://www.americanselect.org/about

I guess I vehemently disagree. As a Ron Paul supporter who will vote for him in the primary when it eventually gets to my state I would most certainly would vote for Romney if Rand became his VP which I don't believe he will. For me party labels is not important but getting good people elected is. Whats more important? Getting libertarians elected as Republicans or losing on the LP ticket? Its sad to say but the LP is disorganized and not influential at all. I know Im gonna catch flak for this but the LP needs to disband. All of those people need to come into the Republican party and change it from within. That would be a powerful force. Politics is not about purity or ideals. I would think that a Senator Paul VP could possibly be in a position to run for president. We need to create a republican party whose majority consists of Goldwaters, Bob Taft, and Pauls types.

Not something I want to see at all. Something tell's me Mitt Romney isn't going to be one compromising his "principles."

The man (Romney) is a magnet for Goldman Sachs money. Rand Paul will be a useless VP for those of us that want change, but he'll be a very useful VP for Mitt Romney in capturing tea party votes and even some Ron Paul votes.

Ron Paul has attacked Romney, view the "3 of a Kind" ad. Romney is referred to as a "Flip-flopper" who "Supported Tarp Bailouts" and "Provided the Blueprint for Obama Care"

It makes strategic sense for him to go after the other Anti-Romney candidate, while they attack Romney. Once the Anti-Romney candidates are minimized, the contrast between Paul and Romney will become even more defined.

Being attached to someone like Romney, even with a well-meaning Rand Paul trying to balance and cancel out the garbage, would create a situation where any Paulian policy viewpoint is "discredited" even though it would probably never be tried.

Kind of like how the monetarist quasi-market economics of Alan Greenspan "discredited" free-banking, private coinage, and free-market stock markets.

Compromise coalitions, as bad as they are, are amplified and exponentially worse when you have a serial flip-flopper like Romney.

I don't know if Rand can deliver the Tea Party vote or not, but I doubt very much that he can deliver the Ron Paul vote with Romney at the head of the ticket. Sure, if Romney is prepared to reverse course completely on foreign and defense policy then a Rand Vice-presidency would make sense. But that's not going to happen, and Rand would lose all credibility if he accepted a position where he is required to defend Romney's position on those issues.

Furthermore, it would be a blunder for Rand. He would lose his base, but he could only expect to compensate for that if the ticket won, and he became Vice-President. The Vice-Presidential nomination on a losing ticket has proven to be a graveyard for everyone who has accepted it going back at least to Henry Cabot Lodge in 1960. It generates a lot of notoriety but few votes.

If there's a scenario in which Romney could make enough concessions for such a ticket to be acceptable to Ron Paul supporters, I can't think of one. If Romney needs more votes to go over the top, a Romney-Santorum ticket is a much better fit.

I tend to disagree that a VP nomination would be a dead-end for Rand Paul. It will increase his visibility and give some additional voice to his views. It will also give him access to Romney's considerable campaign war chest, albeit not on his own behalf. To be sure, Rand would not be able to openly express all his views as a Romney running mate, but enough of the Libertarian philosophy would get out to do some good. And having Rand on the Romney ticket doesn't necessarily prevent Ron from running as Libertarian or Americans Elect candidate.

I've had the impression that Dr. Paul has been whitling down the various neo-cons until it becomes a clear race between him and Romney. Frankly, I'd be much less likely to trust Sen. Paul if he became Romney's running mate.

I've become convinced this is pure psyops to illicit precisely that reaction. There is no chance whatsoever of Romney offering, or Rand accepting the VP slot for a number of reasons.

For Romney,

1)whatever he (hypothetically) gains is suport from Ron Paulers/tea partyers he looses from the banksters and the neocons he has been assiduously courting. The banksters will go to Obama and the flush with cash Romney campaign is suddenly broke.

2) The press will certainly notice the ideological differences and ask about it. One or the other will have to compromise. And Mitt can't afford another flip flop, the biggest of his life.

For Paul(s)

1) Their movement risks being coopted and they know it. Once it is, its over. Ron Paul hasn't allowed that for himself ever, and wont do it now just so Rand can fly around on Air Force 2.

2) Romney is likely to loose in November. Guess who will be thrown under the bus to take the blame? Then in 2016, Rand will be up for reelection for his senate seat. And he will have lost the support of the Paulers, while still being distrusted by the neocons.

Therefore, let us not waste time discussing what will never happen and instead support Ron Paul to the hilt.

P.S. there is no scenario is a brokered convention where this could happen either. Romney will pick Newt or Santy as his VP if he doesn't have enough delegates himself.

I love Ron Paul and will vote for him right to the end, but if the end comes for his Republican presidential nomination, having Ron's son Rand on the Republican ticket can't do any harm to Libertarian ideas. Let's face it, Ron has already accepted the Republican framework by seeking its nomination, and it has not changed one iota of his commitment to the Constitution and liberty. I don't think putting Rand Paul on the Republican ticket weakens the Libertarian movement, rather it legitimatizes it.

There is NO WAY either Rand or his father would DARE link up with a cretin such as Romney. Romney and Paul are ideologically as far apart as Massachusetts is to the Moon. Such a partnership would destroy either Rand or Ron and brand them as rank hypocrites.

I would consider this an insult to the hard work RON PAUL has put into this campaign! There is ONLY one candidate for me = RON PAUL. I would NEVER vote for Romney regardless of who his token running mate is. It would be a major slap in the face to those of us who have supported Dr. Paul for all these years and are fighting for individual liberty!

Yeah, I wondered about Ron laying off Romney after Iowa. Dunno. Ron can win the independent swing vote which is what I think wins the election.The die hard Repugs and the Dims are to set in their ways to clue into reality.Still hoping Mitt keeps his job doing whatever he does next year.

The so-called Tea Party voters that Rand might deliver if he were naive enough to end up on a ticket with Romney would be the same misguided Tea Party folks that voice their support for Santorum and Newt when polled, yet withold their support for the only candidate they should be supporting- Ron Paul. Rand will not be delivering the Ron Paul supporters. There is no way any of us (except a handful that still think this is about a man and not about the message of freedom and liberty) would ever vote for Mitt Romney at the top of the ticket. We might as well be voting for Obama, as Mitt is only slightly different from him on virtually every position he takes (or at least this week, you never can tell with Mitt). The fostering of this story is just a ruse to distract the Ron Paul team from the importanta task of getting Ron Paul elected and restoring freedom and liberty to this country. A Mitt Romney presidency will just be Bush's 4th term, and that is something this country cannot afford. A powerless son of a great man like Ron Paul in the VP spot will do little to improve our future. I can only hope that should the choice be in his hands, that Ron will sell out his son for liberty before he will sell out america for his son. Because his supporters will not sell out america and its future for ANYTHING.

What powers does a vice president have? Could he demand an audit of Fort Knox or the Fed? If so then I say go for it. However if the VP is powerless then it would be better if Rand stay in the Senate where he can be of more use.

If this happens then we get 4 years of Rand having to violate his principles by agreeing with and pimping RomneyStatoBS. No thanks. I'm not completely sold on Rand yet, but to watch him smile for the establishment for years would destroy his credibility.

I have to agree with this. Romney will (fraudulently) get the nomination and try to appease the conservative base by adding Rand Paul to the ticket. Santorum may be the frontrunner now, but the media will drive him out and marginalize him as the days go by, all while proclaiming that Romney is "the only candidate who can beat Obama." CiaNN and co. won't go for Santorum as social conservatism represents yet another barrier that stands in front of the state's quest for absolute power.

Wenzel, do you trust Rand like you do Ron to always do the right thing? I don't yet. I also am not sure if I even want him to take the VP slot with Romney because he would have to compromise and support a lot of neo-con policies, would he not?

I don't think this is good news other than the fact that it shows how powerful the RP forces are.

1) Mitt chooses Rand and the Republicans win - the bubble which is expanding bursts, and Romney, with a silent VP has an economy fail. People look at Romney/Rand and blame the failure on free markets. Liberty is dead.

2) Obama wins against Santorum - Ron Paul gets 15% of the vote. The economy collapses on Obama's watch. Keynsianism is a failure. A libertarian, i.e. Rand Paul wins 4 years later and we have a truly limited government and prosperity ensues.

I think Austrians/Libertarians have come so far, it would be a sham to concede to a socialist whether it be Obama or Romney. It would mean death to the movement.

Possibility #3) Mitt chooses Rand and the Republicans win, AND Ron Paul gets 15% of the vote as a 3rd party (Libertarian or Americans Elect). The bubble bursts, but it happens too soon to be blamed on the new administration - It's still Obama'a problem, just as Obama is trying to make everything Bush's fault. The significance of Ron Paul's minority vote can't be ignored. Romney has adopted some level of true conservatism/libertarianism by choosing Rand Paul, so the flip-flopping Romney and the new Republican congress is forced to move to the right as the groundswell of public opinion is clear.

I don't like where this is going. If all that the Ron Paul Revolution succeeds in doing is procuring Rand Paul the Vice Presidency, then for me it would all have been in vain.

Rand Paul?

Seriously?

The guy grew up with Ron Paul as a father. Having been exposed to the theory of liberty day in day out at the dinner table - to go against those teachings and run as a caricature of a right winger is astonishing.

I am a Ron Paul supporter and I can assure you that there are many like me that would not vote for a Romney/Paul ticket. Its not going to happen. I wouldn't care one bit if Ron Paul himself endorsed such a ticket. And I pray that it never happens. I don't even know if I believe that this story is true. And I will not believe it unless I see it with my own eyes and hear it with my own ears. If this is true, there will be no more donations to the campaign from me!

I think that Paul is playing a political version of the old Parker Brothers game Risk! People familiar with the game know that on occasion temporary alliances can be formed between two players to knock off the others. Eventually, upon accomplishment of this the last two standing will square off against each other as there can be only one winner. The same holds true here. If the reports are true about Paul being a close second in delegates to Romeny I expect them to wind up fighting each other once Gingrich and Santorum are defeated.

I stopped giving money to Ron at the exact moment I realized he was laying off Mitt. No more for me. If he runs third party, I'll go "all in" but if he's so timorous because he's worried about Rand's career, as many speculate, then it's no longer about liberty, it's about "the family" and doesn't deserve our support.

EVERY politician in history has used the exact same rational: "Principles without POWER is pointless." Therefore, they compromise, compromise, compromise and end up committing the same atrocities they originally wanted to prevent. Stay true RON, run on your own.

Becoming a bit player in arch-statist Mitt Romney's imperial glory indicates a person who loves POWER, not liberty. So "doing the deal" gains you nothing. Better to attack the system from the outside until it is weakened beyond repair.

Imagine if all people of talent refused to enter the government. The state would collapse. Awesome. Imagine if all people of talent said "once I get in power, I'll make the right decisions." who then compromise as much as necessary to win. Society would collapse.

Political office should properly be seen for what it is: a bunch of lying, thug-criminals whom "good society" marginalizes. Because this is not the case, the system continues. People like yourself say "aw, they got to make the deal or what's the point!" No they don't. They never have to. They can win by not playing the game. There is a better way.

Gaining political power solves NOTHING. This is a key lesson of liberty. Want to change the world? Talk to your neighbor, family, friends etc... try to convince them one person at a time. No shortcuts. No glorious Ron Paul presidency, as great as it would be, will fix things, if the people have not changed their attitudes.

Rand's credibility is already suspect in my mind. If he joined a Romney ticket that'd be the end of it entirely. Romney/Paul, or Romney/Anyone is a dealbreaker. Period. The liberty movement cannot be co-opted into mainstream GOP and retain any legitimacy. Romney/Paul would be nothing but hypocrisy.

Likely result of Rand Paul as VP... he spends four year in the Presidential bunker and nothing changes. Or worse, he's used by Romney's puppet masters to work against freedom. As VP, he'd be nothing more than the Romney's lawn jockey.

Doesn't make much sense to me. Rand wouldn't deliver the Ron Paul supporters, not me anyways, Rand wouldn't help much with the neo-con base, tainted by his last name (to them), and that leaves a small portion of tea partiers who would be satisfied with a number of other less Paulian candidates. As well, if Ron did endorse such a ticket it would be a sad ending to his political career.

I'm a Ron Paul delegate in Alabama and have been supporting the Congressman for many years. I want Ron Paul to be President and know that all of the other candidates (including Romney) pale in comparison. Having said that, however, I am having a hard time understanding why my fellow RP supporters dismiss the idea of a Romney/Paul ticket so quickly. If, for some reason, Ron Paul doesn't end up as the Republican nominee-and chooses (as he did in 2008) not to launch a third party effort-why wouldn't we want either Ron or Rand one heartbeat away from the Presidency and the nominee's running mate? I am no fan of Romney. His economic policies would be comparable to Obama and Bush. An Austrian thinker in the VP's office could prove to be very strategic for the future of the liberty movement. Besides, let's say a Romney/Rand ticket won in November and was re-elected in 2016. Doesn't that make Rand Paul the presumed Republican nominee in 2020? I understand that scenario doesn't give us everything we want right now, but if the elder Dr. Paul is not the nominee this time around I'd be willing to settle for Rand Paul for President at some point in the future.

The country is going to be going through some bad times in the next couple years. If Rand Paul is VP to Romney then I am sure that the masses will be taught in schools forever, "that the great disruption of 2013 was due to the implementaion of rothbardian economic policies".

Is Romney in favor of the drug war? yesIs Romney in favor of the the Patriot Act? yesIs Romney in favor of the using food as a weapon on civilian population(aka sanctions)? yesIs Romney in favor of central banking and bailouts at the expense of taxpayers? yes

Those are some reasons I would not be happy to see a Paul running with Romeny...I would not vote for Romney...ever. If you think putting Romney in office is a first step to restoring this country then you have more faith in how our governemnt works than I do...good luck.

Ron Paul has done a good job spreading ideas, but i think your naive if you think that after 24 years of consistency doing a "big Romney compromise" at the convention is going to help finally convince the Council on Foreign Relations than a non-interventionist policy is a good idea.

Interesting to me how the conspiracy theorists are apparently right in the middle of their own conspiracy in order to gain power. And why do they have to conspire? Because they are covering who they really are, just like BO did so that people would vote for him. The general populace did not know who he was and is still trying to make excuses for him. If he had said openly that he believed in tyranny and dictatorial rule and socialism he would never have gotten into office. Likewise if Mitt were to say openly that he is not a conservative but maybe just a corporate opportunist, and Ron would openly declare himself as an anarchist who despises conservatives they would not get far either. So they conspire "behind closed doors" to come up with some way to spin things to deceive as many as possible to get votes. Sadly many are deceived because these politicians too use the media to smear and deceive people against their opponents while never really exposing the truth about who they themselves are. Using words like "conservative" to cover establishment RINO ism or "liberty" to cover for anarchism, etc.

One thing I don't get. Many people here seem to think that conservatives are not for "liberty". We are not for anarchy and we are not deceived so as to think that man can live without some government because we do not all exercise self-government, and it is necessary to have laws that govern us from without when we will not govern ourselves from within. But I do not think I am alone among "conservatives" when I say we are for life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; that we are for liberty and justice for all. So I don't understand the hatred for "conservatives" that I read between the lines here. Like we are enemies or something. I suppose I could catch vitriol for this but I really wonder what the Paul and Romney people would look like if they really exposed who they are. They have tried hard to "look like conservatives" to get votes yet their people here despise us. So if they are not conservative they are deceivers who apparently think the end justifies the means, like BO and his statism. So why do people conspire and deceive to hide who they really are and smear opponents who wear their true beliefs on their shirtsleeve - even to their own detriment? I conclude that if they have to hide things they are deceivers. I have seen in life that perhaps all of us are unknowingly deceived sometimes even while we seek for truth. And many times those we admire, support, or follow, are right on some things and deceived on something else. This is true among Christian doctrines and why we have so many denominations and religions in general . It is also true in politics. But the ones who are deliberately "deceiving and being deceived" are destructive to the civil society. If our nation is crumbling it is because of them. I much less fear someone who says what he believes even if I don't agree with all he believes, than those who have to hide who they are and we later find out their "dark side". For example Ron Paul has a lot going for his understanding of the economic morass our nation is in, but when you look at his mentors, his anarchist philosophy, you have to conclude that the only way he could accomplish his aim in America is by dictatorship. What does that leave us imposing his form of "liberty" on us all? Anarchy leads to chaos because men are not angels and that leads to police-state tyranny, not liberty.

"Anarchy leads to chaos because men are not angels and that leads to police-state tyranny, not liberty."

Dude, what planet are you writing from? Since Earth is already cankered with "police-state tyranny," a little anarchy might prove a refreshing change, especially considering that the true anarchist's first principle is that of non-aggression.

"but when you look at his mentors, his anarchist philosophy, you have to conclude that the only way he could accomplish his aim in America is by dictatorship."

I disagree...reducing the size of the Federal Government and returning power to a less centralized framework is the opposite of dictatorship.

"So I don't understand the hatred for "conservatives" that I read between the lines here. Like we are enemies or something."

If you support the drug war then you are an opponent of the individual freedoms to control our own bodies...that makes you and enemy.

If you support first using food as a weapon against civilian populations(sanctions against Iraq 1992-2001, Iran present) and then bombing infrastructure and weddings then you are in favor of crimes against humanity and that makes you an enemy of mine.

If you support foreign aid and military support for the House of Saud that makes you an enemy.

If you support embargoes against Cuba you are an enemy.

If you support the Patriot Act and the centralization of our education system then taht makes you an enemy.

God knows what definition of "conservative" you use...but most self described "convservatives" I know are pretty ignorant and or apathetic towards most of the policies I wrote about above that have been supported by "conservatives" over the last couple decades.

Most self described conservatives have no idea that the FBI is on official record of giving a live bomb to the guy who tried to blow up the WTC in 1993 and told him to do it. Once you learn that and start investigating some other things in our history then maybe you will see why people like me want nothing to do with people like you.

You are crazy if you think Ron Paul hides who he really is. How do you know about his "anarchist" mentors? Because he tells people at every opportunity that he can to read their written works. He is not trying to deceive conservatives into thinking he is one of them; he is trying to drag the conservatives over to his viewpoint. And it is working...

You sound like a Neocon. A true Neocon is basically a conservative in economic realms, but panders to or favors imperialism, and believes that "conservative" principles can be instituted by Big Government, just as long as "we" are in control of the big government. Neocons fail to see the flaws and folly in such a premise. Neocons are weak on defending personal liberty, and thus are susceptible to deleterious compromises. Such strategy has failed for the past 83 years. And please remember, the whole Neocon movement was started by the Trotskyite wing of the Republican Party. If you don't believe that there are Trotskyites in the Republican Party, then you need to study Twentieth Century history much better.

Amazed at the negative reaction to this on here. Ron Paul has already lost. It has been decided. That seems clear to me. For Ron to win against the overwhelming power of the pro-Fed/bank lobby he would have needed an overwhelming surge of national uprising and public interest against the Fed and crony capitalism. This looked to be possible at the November 10 elections, but has faded quickly and the current crop of Republican nominees shows that this idea is not winning. Romney will win the nomination, that is clear. He still probably will lose the election. Bye-bye gun rights, hello massive taxes, and even further loss of liberty. Romney/Rand have a much better chance of winning.

Rand, who has a good understanding of the concept of freedom, having an ear into Romney and hopefully moderating his growth of the state would be a great thing. Also, a much better platform to espouse the truths of liberty and real capitalism than the Senate. And as the Jason mentioned above, a much better path to the Presidency.

Let the establishment steal this election fom Ron Paul and libertarian ideas will be more poweful than you can imagine.

If Ron Paul comprimises his integrity and bites his tounge regarding Romney's statism and it will be a significant loss in the battle for liberty.

Ron Paul will do the right thing...he is just playing strategically and will go after Romney hard when Santorum and Gingrich are eliminated.

Ron Paul has been fighting for decades...he isn't going to make a deal with Satan at the climax of his career.

No he will use the biggest stage he can get in order to make the biggest statement he possibly can...he is only playing nice for now...he is going to be balls out at some point. He will pick his time strategically.

The more voice for Libertarian ideas, the better off we'll be. I like the idea of Rand and Ron Paul both running, the former as Republican VP nominee, and the latter as Americans Elect candidate. That gives conservatives two ways to vote for liberty. The risk is that it may coalesce the left, and split the right, giving Obama the election, but I don't think that will happen. Hope and change clearly didn't work, so I think in that scenario, Obama loses to either Romney/Paul or Ron Paul in a close sub-majority win.

I wouldn't vote for Romney even if RON Paul was his VP. The VP position is completely useless. You really think Rand or Ron can compete with the billions and billions of bankster/corporation money trying to influence Mitt Romney?

Vote against BO or face the real risk of a Supreme Court that will rule that the 2nd amendment doesn't apply to individuals. The risk is real, it's very high, and imminent. The President will likely appoint 3 new judges to the SC during the next term. I would like to vote for RP, but if I can't, I'll vote AGAINST BO.

I am very torn by this. I had said before that unless Ron Paul was the Republican candidate I would vote for the Libertarian candidate but if Rand is the V.P. at least there would be some forward movement (pro-liberty)in the republican party which is definitely a good thing. I've talked to other people however that say that if Paul is not the nominee they will not vote period.

1. I'm TOTAL Dr. Paul.2. But -Romney WILL slash costs and FRAUD - it's in his blood. We need that right now.3. Rand as VP = 8 years of some influence, especially the first 4 years when Romney needs to keep Tea Party close to win a 2nd term. 4. Plus we get another 8 years of Rand as President.5. Rand believes/says the same things as Dr. Paul but in ways that pull more Independents.6. If no Rand VP - Dr. Paul has my vote as a 3rd party candidate and 6 months from now many more people will know he's the real deal: he pulls 36-38% of the vote - BHO & Romney get 31- 32% each7. The demopublican piggies cry wee wee wee all the way home.8. THE USA becomes world's #1 energy producer, goes on gold standard & starts to mfg. & export & builds a REAL economy again.

That's a lot of optimism, but I'm right with you on 1-8. My toughest decision would be whether to vote for Romney/Rand Paul, which I think assures Obama's defeat, or to vote for Ron Paul as the 3rd party (Libertarian or Americans Elect) candidate. Do you think Ron would withdraw if Rand received the VP nomination of the Republicans?

All but one of you act as if this is REAL. It's completely phony disinformation disseminated in order to do exactly what it's doing as revealed in these comments...divide and misdirect. The "information" is coming from Chuck Todd at NBC. Anybody here trust the weasels at NBC or CNBC or MSNBC?

Electoral politics is as phony as a $3 bill. Concentrate on building the movement and making connections within Paul nation and forget about the insider politics nonsense. They know you'll bit every time they feed you the horserace angle. Tell 'em to stuff it.

I personally believe that this combo is a recipe for disaster. Getting Obama out of the White House is the only plus in this combo. Romney is not a true conservative and I can see Romney constantly clashing with Paul. Just doesn't look good to me. But, if it comes down to it, I will hold my nose and vote for Romney and whomever his running mate happens to be.

Ron Paul is a purist. That is why he has been marginalized as a congressman in pragmatic political world. But at least he has his own drum. Rand Paul does not suffer from purity. He does just enough in the Senate to stay on the reservation. I am not impressed. The slope in D.C. is very slippery. He's already proven to be a bit too clever. It's all down hill (no pun intended) from here.

If Mittens can't win in round one, he'll cut a deal with Gingrich who can be easily bought for an ambassadorship somewhere. He can probably steal away enough from Santorum who doesn't have the structure in place to win anyway. Ron can be ignored, as far as getting Mittens selected as the Republican candidate.

Ron Paul can go 3rd party or stay home. People who like his positions will not vote for either Mittens or B.H. Obamanation. One or the other will win, and everything continues in its downhill slide.

At some point China will stop funding our debt and that will be the end of the American experiment.

If my fellow Americans can't wake up, shake off media lies, and DEMAND the principles of Ron Paul, then we will have failed the promise our founding fathers gave us. We will deserve to slide into decay and insignificance. Some other country will take up the torch of freedom and rightly supplant us.

I think that Joe Biden should retire, and Mittens should become O'bomber's running mate. You say that Mitt is a "Republican" and O'bomber is a Democrat? True, but as a perceptive and clever observer noted back in 1968, "there ain't a dime's worth of difference between the two" and that was at a time when a dime was still worth something.

O'Bomber as the incumbent Prez, and Mitt as his runnng mate, Ron (or Rand) Paul can be the GOP rival; the American voter will finally have a choice, not an echo, and the first Presidential election in many decades with any real importance will have taken place.

It makes at least as much sense as the Mitt Romney/ Ron (or Rand)Paul melarkey!